We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
META-ANALYSIS
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
REVIEW
Focused psychosocial interventions for children in low-resource humanitarian settings: a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis.
Lancet Global Health 2018 April
BACKGROUND: Results from studies evaluating the effectiveness of focused psychosocial support interventions in children exposed to traumatic events in humanitarian settings in low-income and middle-income countries have been inconsistent, showing varying results by setting and subgroup (eg, age or gender). We aimed to assess the effectiveness of these interventions, and to explore which children are likely to benefit most.
METHODS: We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data (IPD) from 3143 children recruited to 11 randomised controlled trials of focused psychosocial support interventions versus waiting list. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, PubMed, PsycArticles, Web of Science, and the main local low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) databases according to the list of databases relevant to LMIC developed collaboratively by Cochrane and WHO Library, up to November, 2016. We included randomised controlled trials that assessed the effectiveness of focused psychosocial support interventions in children exposed to traumatic events in LMICs, compared with waiting lists (eg, inactive controls). We excluded quasi-randomised trials, studies that did not focus on psychosocial support interventions, and studies that compared two active interventions without control conditions. We requested anonymised data from each trial for each of the prespecified variables for each child who was randomly assigned. The main outcomes considered were continuous scores in post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms, depressive symptoms, and anxiety symptoms assessed with rating scales administered immediately (0-4 weeks) after the intervention. We harmonised all individual items from rating scales using item response theory methods. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42013006960.
FINDINGS: We identified a beneficial effect of focused psychosocial support interventions on PTSD symptoms (standardised mean difference [SMD] -0·33, 95% CI -0·52 to -0·14) that was maintained at follow-up (-0·21, -0·42 to -0·01). We also identified benefits at the endpoint for functional impairment (-0·29, -0·43 to -0·15) and for strengths: coping (-0·22, -0·43 to -0·02), hope (-0·29, -0·48 to -0·09), and social support (-0·27, -0·52 to -0·02). In IPD meta-analyses focused on age, gender, displacement status, region, and household size we found a stronger improvement in PTSD symptoms in children aged 15-18 years (-0·43, -0·63 to -0·23), in non-displaced children (-0·40, -0·52 to -0·27), and in children living in smaller households (<6 members; -0·27, -0·42 to -0·11).
INTERPRETATION: Overall, focused psychosocial interventions are effective in reducing PTSD and functional impairment, and in increasing hope, coping, and social support. Future studies should focus on strengthening interventions for younger children, displaced children, and children living in larger households.
FUNDING: European Commission FP7th Framework Programme for Research (Marie Curie International Outgoing Fellowship) and the National Institute on Aging.
METHODS: We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data (IPD) from 3143 children recruited to 11 randomised controlled trials of focused psychosocial support interventions versus waiting list. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, PubMed, PsycArticles, Web of Science, and the main local low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) databases according to the list of databases relevant to LMIC developed collaboratively by Cochrane and WHO Library, up to November, 2016. We included randomised controlled trials that assessed the effectiveness of focused psychosocial support interventions in children exposed to traumatic events in LMICs, compared with waiting lists (eg, inactive controls). We excluded quasi-randomised trials, studies that did not focus on psychosocial support interventions, and studies that compared two active interventions without control conditions. We requested anonymised data from each trial for each of the prespecified variables for each child who was randomly assigned. The main outcomes considered were continuous scores in post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms, depressive symptoms, and anxiety symptoms assessed with rating scales administered immediately (0-4 weeks) after the intervention. We harmonised all individual items from rating scales using item response theory methods. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42013006960.
FINDINGS: We identified a beneficial effect of focused psychosocial support interventions on PTSD symptoms (standardised mean difference [SMD] -0·33, 95% CI -0·52 to -0·14) that was maintained at follow-up (-0·21, -0·42 to -0·01). We also identified benefits at the endpoint for functional impairment (-0·29, -0·43 to -0·15) and for strengths: coping (-0·22, -0·43 to -0·02), hope (-0·29, -0·48 to -0·09), and social support (-0·27, -0·52 to -0·02). In IPD meta-analyses focused on age, gender, displacement status, region, and household size we found a stronger improvement in PTSD symptoms in children aged 15-18 years (-0·43, -0·63 to -0·23), in non-displaced children (-0·40, -0·52 to -0·27), and in children living in smaller households (<6 members; -0·27, -0·42 to -0·11).
INTERPRETATION: Overall, focused psychosocial interventions are effective in reducing PTSD and functional impairment, and in increasing hope, coping, and social support. Future studies should focus on strengthening interventions for younger children, displaced children, and children living in larger households.
FUNDING: European Commission FP7th Framework Programme for Research (Marie Curie International Outgoing Fellowship) and the National Institute on Aging.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app